The END of Trek?

[Hugh Mann]

I don't consider reworking Star Trek in the manner that J.J. Abrams has to be progress. I consider it to be an abandonment of Star Trek. Furthermore, I don't think that Star Trek needs to be so dumbed down in order to maintain relevance in our modern world. I believe that serious stories that convey some kind of social commentary in a thoughtful, cerebral manner (with bursts of action now and then to accentuate it all) are still viable.

If I'm wrong and Star Trek does need to be so radically altered that it does not look like Star Trek, then it's already dead, and what's being produced these days (since J.J. Abrams took over) isn't Star Trek. But I won't continue with that line of thought, as I'd just be repeating what I've already posted in other threads on this forum. If it's the only way to keep the franchise viable, then in my view any discussion of the end of Trek is extraneous as Trek has already ended.

Might I ask this, I'm going to start working on my own Trek comic, within the month, if all goes well, and could I send you a few stories, when made, to get your opinion, before I put 'em out? I want to picked a few folks, from here, and another forum, to sorta test 'em out with an advancing screening?

I'd certainly be interested in helping you out with some feedback. Now, I'm not a very creative person, so I don't know how useful my feedback would be to your creative process, but I'm definitely willing to give it a shot, one Trekkie to another. Send me a private message with the details.

"Let it die" is a ridiculous standpoint when there are millions who are enjoying the new version of Star Trek as much as (and in some cases more than) the old. You'd really rob them of their enjoyment? If you're not enjoying it, stop watching - just like I did with the remade Battlestar Galactica.

I know the ongoing reinvention of Trek has proven to be more critically and commercially successful than prior outings by most measures, but that, in my view, isn't a good enough reason to keep pumping out movies and TV shows with the label "Star Trek." There are no shortage of popcorn flicks, so there's no need to single out Star Trek specifically for reinvention just to entertain people.

It's just that some of us feel that if Star Trek needs to be, and I'm trying to think of a way to put this without simply repeating either of my previous posts' content in this thread, altered so radically that it doesn't even resemble prior iterations of trek then it should be allowed to die. Some of us believe, and I think that Gene Roddenberry would agree with me when I say this, that blind profit isn't the only thing in life and should not be the only consideration behind Trek, nor should simple entertainment. We could stop watching, but that wouldn't change what is happening, any more than closing your eyes would stop a loved one from being assaulted. And I use that metaphor with specific intent; after all, Star Trek is a hell of a lot more than simply a media franchise, or a vehicle for some media conglomerate to profit, to a lot of us.

 

[Sindatur]

@Hugh Mann sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but, CBS and Paramount own the rights to Trek, so, regardless what any of our feelings are, it really is just a vehicle for creating profit. Hopefully, while they continue milking it for profit, we can find soemthing to enjoy in it. If we can't we merely don't watch new Trek. It does you absolutely no harm if something is done to Trek that you don't like (and as Greg points out, you can put 25 Trekkies in a room, and ask what is the core of Trek and get at least 10 or 15 different answers, if not 25 different answers), there is no definitive answer, so, even if CBS and Paramount wanted to cater to our version of what the core of Trek is, who's version would they choose?

It's a very bizarre statement to say "there's no need to single out Star Trek specifically for reinvention just to entertain people". Profiting through entertaining people is precisely Trek's reason for existing

 

[Hugh Mann]

No, it isn't. Profit is the reason why Paramount and Co. agree to fund its production, and promote it through advertising and whatnot, but it is not the sole reason for Trek's existence (or wasn't, anyways). I'm not sure what kind of a world you have to live in to believe that the only purpose behind the existence of Trek is to make money for someone, but it's not a world I want to live in.

And I do acknowledge that there is a great diversity of opinion on what constitutes Trek, and that what I'm saying is my opinion. I feel I've justified it well, or at least well enough, so I don't really see the point in saying that, essentially, an opinion is an opinion.

 

[BillJ]

No, it isn't. Profit is the reason why Paramount and Co. agree to fund its production, and promote it through advertising and whatnot, but it is not the sole reason for Trek's existence (or wasn't, anyways). I'm not sure what kind of a world you have to live in to believe that the only purpose behind the existence of Trek is to make money for someone, but it's not a world I want to live in.

It is what it is.

Roddenberry, even as far back as TOS was stealing royalties and using the show to hawk merchandise he was selling.

It may mean more to us than most commercial products, but a commercial product is what Trek is.

 

[Greg Cox]

(and as Greg points out, you can put 25 Trekkies in a room, and ask what is the core of Trek and get at least 10 or 15 different answers, if not 25 different answers),

As proven daily by this very board, and at every Star Trek convention I have ever attended!

I believe it was Mimi Panitch who once stated that being the editor of the Star Trek books was like being the pope during a time of extreme doctrinal dispute . . . and that was back before TNG and all the other spinoffs!

 

[Hugh Mann]

It is what it is.

Roddenberry, even as far back as TOS was stealing royalties and using the show to hawk merchandise he was selling.

It may mean more to us than most commercial products, but a commercial product is what Trek is.

In addition to other things.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It is what it is.

Roddenberry, even as far back as TOS was stealing royalties and using the show to hawk merchandise he was selling.

It may mean more to us than most commercial products, but a commercial product is what Trek is.

In addition to other things.

That's pretty much its primary thing. Sure it told some stories that had social commentary but always in the context of commercial entertainment.

 

[Greg Cox]

Sigh. As I keep insisting over and over, it doesn't have be one or another. Yes, popular, commercial entertainment is meant to be,well, popular and commercial. But that doesn't mean that the content or quality of the show is utterly irrelevant to all concerned. Commerce and creativity are not matter and antimatter; they don't explode if they come into contact with each other.

 

[The Grim Ghost]

They'll remake anything they think they can make money off of.

Exactly....that's my point. Voyager = 0.00 and a bad investment. They had seven years and John Q. Public has little idea that it was ever on. They aren't going to bank on it. Yes, yes, we can say it's "possible" that they'll do it, but that's meaningless. It's possible that one day they'll make a 10 part, super serious mini-series out of "Plan 9 From Outer Space", but like a remake of "Star Trek does Lost In Space", it's not probable.

So I say again, anyone worried that the role of Janeway will be recast...don't be.

I don't know, once they remade Battlestar Galactica I decided I would no longer be surprised about anything being bought back.

Yes it was a success, but the original show was basically forgotten and I don't think many people were clamoring for it to return.

 

[Lynx]

^^
I have recently watched the original Battlestar Galactica for the first time and find it much better than the current doom-and-gloom rubbish.

I don't understand why they re-made that series and made it so boring.

 

[Lynx]

No, it isn't. Profit is the reason why Paramount and Co. agree to fund its production, and promote it through advertising and whatnot, but it is not the sole reason for Trek's existence (or wasn't, anyways). I'm not sure what kind of a world you have to live in to believe that the only purpose behind the existence of Trek is to make money for someone, but it's not a world I want to live in.

It is what it is.

Roddenberry, even as far back as TOS was stealing royalties and using the show to hawk merchandise he was selling.

It may mean more to us than most commercial products, but a commercial product is what Trek is.

Everything in the entertaining business is commercial. The main goal is to sell a product.

But there are different grades of it, from decent products with decent marketing to deliberate sell-outs.

 

[The Lensman]

Except Voyager wasn't the faliure you paint it as. It wasn't as popular as Next Gen, but it went a full 7 seasons, and is still making CBS money now via DVD sales and endless reruns worldwide. It's at least as well known as Lost in Space was to the average moviegoer when they remade that.

Do I think it's likely to be remade any time soon? No. But I think it's got a better chance long run than you think.

Voyager lasted seven years because it was the flagship show of the UPN Network and it would've been a major PR blow to UPN to cancel it. Had it been on a regular, non-Paramount owned, network, it wouldn't have made seven years. There was this bizarre notion that because TNG lasted seven years, the ideal number of years for a Trek series was seven. (It was as bizarre as the notion that because it took TNG three years to get really good, that it took a Trek series three years to get good. And yes, that was the prevailing line of thought during Trek's heyday.)

They'll remake anything they think they can make money off of.

Exactly....that's my point. Voyager = 0.00 and a bad investment. They had seven years and John Q. Public has little idea that it was ever on. They aren't going to bank on it. Yes, yes, we can say it's "possible" that they'll do it, but that's meaningless. It's possible that one day they'll make a 10 part, super serious mini-series out of "Plan 9 From Outer Space", but like a remake of "Star Trek does Lost In Space", it's not probable.

So I say again, anyone worried that the role of Janeway will be recast...don't be.

I don't know, once they remade Battlestar Galactica I decided I would no longer be surprised about anything being bought back.

Yes it was a success, but the original show was basically forgotten and I don't think many people were clamoring for it to return.

Maybe, but BSG was only a single show, and so it was easier to bring back. Trek is a big name now, and that name has been sullied enough. They won't be taking chances on iterations no one outside of fandom cared about. It's easy to inflate Voyager's impact on people when you spend alot of time around fandom, but out in the real world.....well, most people are barely even aware it existed.

In fact, alot of non-fans got the spin-off's mixed up in all kinds of ways because they weren't as invested in keeping track of it all.

^^
I have recently watched the original Battlestar Galactica for the first time and find it much better than the current doom-and-gloom rubbish.

I don't understand why they re-made that series and made it so boring.

Well one thing the original didn't do was convey that absolute realism of the shows premise: the nigh extermination of the human race. To be honest, I still get nostalgic for some old BSG, I loved the show as a kid. But even then I knew that people would act much more differently than they do on the show.

Sadly, while the new show was more believable, it was also damn depressing. Too much for me and I quit watching somewhere in season 2.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Voyager lasted seven years because it was the flagship show of the UPN Network and it would've been a major PR blow to UPN to cancel it.

Exactly. It's ratings were miniscule when compared to first-run syndication TNG at its peak, but it was also UPN's highest-rating hour of drama, so there really wasn't anything to replace it with. Any replacement show needed to be a higher-ratings prospect to satisfy the advertisers.

 

[Greg Cox]

^^
I have recently watched the original Battlestar Galactica for the first time and find it much better than the current doom-and-gloom rubbish.

I don't understand why they re-made that series and made it so boring.

Okay, we're clearly coming at this from different directions!

I never liked the original BSG even when it first aired, back when I was in college, and thought the reboot was vastly superior, by several orders of magnitude.

Bleak as hell, sure, but, at its best, gripping and powerful. "Doom-and-gloom" isn't bad by definition. PLANET OF THE APES and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS are grim, too, but they're still classics. Ditto for much of the original TWILIGHT ZONE and OUTER LIMITS.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Whether or not it's worthwhile for a show to be a crass sell out vs a scintillating work of art depends on where it lives. What works on CBS is not the same as HBO. That's not because of some huge gap in talent between the people working for each so much as it is due to the interests and tastes of people watching each, and what they reward with good ratings.

Good case in point: Ron Moore's new BSG series was critically praised and garnered a loyal and noisy fanbase. I'm sure there are many people who consider it the best space opera series of all time, and not boring but rather fascinatingly complex and challenging.

Was that right for SyFy? maybe not. The ratings were only so so. SyFy has now responded to the tastes of their audience with lightweight sci fi ish shows (largely cop shows in sci fi window dressing) reality TV nonsense and wrestling.

Moral of the story: audiences get what they deserve. And if we want more grownup space opera, we better hope it's on HBO.

 

[Hugh Mann]

And that seems very unlikely. A quick glance through Wikipedia's article called "List of programs broadcast on HBO" reveals exactly zero science fiction shows at any point in the channel's history (though they currently have at least one fantasy show).

 

[Nerys Myk]

And that seems very unlikely. A quick glance through Wikipedia's article called "List of programs broadcast on HBO" reveals exactly zero science fiction shows at any point in the channel's history (though they currently have at least one fantasy show).

More about the tone of the show than the genre.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If HBO is willing to do Game of Thones, I don't see why they wouldn't do a sci fi series, space opera or otherwise. High fantasy is just as "embarrassing and nerdy" as space opera, so clearly that's not a problem for them.

Every so often, there's talk of a sci fi series in development at HBO (more of the social commentary type than space opera.) None have yet come through, but most series that get discussed never make it through the process, regardless of genre.

I could see HBO adapting some well regarded space opera novel series, something with literary cachet.